Category: Employment

Deman v Victoria University of Manchester: EAT 28 Sep 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 1375 – 98 – 2809

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Deman v Victoria University of Manchester EAT 28-Sep-1998
The claimant asserted the appearance of prejudice in the tribunal which had heard his claim.
Held: The claim was unfounded. Courts should acknowledge that there was always a risk of causing suspicion if untoward remarks were made, and a court . .

Cited by:

See Also – Leavers v The Victoria University of Manchester EAT 21-Feb-2000
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205593

Akinbile v South London Family Housing Association: EAT 23 Sep 1999

Judges:

His Honour Judge J Hicks QC

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 92 – 99 – 2309, EAT/92/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave – Akinbele v South London Family Housing Association EAT 19-Feb-1999
Appeal on basis that ET decision was perverse.
Held: Leave given . .

Cited by:

See Also – Akinbile v South London Family Housing Association EAT 20-Nov-2000
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205579

Davies v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council: EAT 15 Sep 1999

A part time worker who attended a full time course on union matters connected with her employment was discriminated against when not paid the full time taken by the course. Since the majority of part time workers were women, a provision resulting in part timers having to spend unpaid time for which a full time worker would be paid was indirect discrimination.
EAT European Material – Article 19

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P)

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, EAT/449/97, [1999] UKEAT 449 – 97 – 1509

Links:

Bailii

Discrimination, Employment, European

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205592

Facey v Midas Retail Security and Another: EAT 1 Jul 1999

The claimant appealed, asserting bias in the Tribunal chairman. The respondents and chairman himself had filed statements contradicting what the claimant said, and the EAT was unable to determine the issue without first hearing evidence as to the conflict.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 966 – 98 – 0107, [2001] ICR 287, FA 13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Facey v Midas Retail Security and Another EAT 9-May-2000
facey_midasEAT2000
The EAT considered how it should deal with allegations of bias in members of the Tribunal, and particularly where there are differences as to the facts of what occurred.
Held: It is sometimes appropriate for the EAT to hear live evidence in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205432

Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd) v Turner: EAT 15 Jul 1999

Appeal against finding that defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court.

Judges:

D M Levy QC HHJ

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 516 – 99 – 1506

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Turner v Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK) EAT 23-Mar-1999
Appeal by Mr Turner against an Employment Tribunal’s order that his case on the merits be not heard until after the Employment Appeal Tribunal has heard and determined an appeal by his former employers, which they wish to make against a previous . .

Cited by:

See Also – Harada Ltd T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd v Turner EAT 2-Nov-1999
EAT Jurisdiction – . .
See Also – Harada Ltd v Turner CA 6-Apr-2001
The claimant had sought damages alleging unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from his wages. The defendant argued that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. During preliminary discussions, the judge hearing the application was . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint Uk) v Turner EAT 25-Feb-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK) v Turner EAT 17-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205450

Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School: EAT 28 Jul 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 383 – 99 – 2807

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Lambrook Haileybury School v Gould EAT 1-Dec-1998
. .
See Also – Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School EAT 5-Jul-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v The Governors of Haileybury and Imperial Services College and others EAT 19-Jul-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205442

Greenwood v British Airways Plc: EAT 17 Jun 1999

The tribunal considered a disability discrimination appeal.
Held: ‘In our judgment the tribunal fell into error by considering the question of disability only as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act. We are quite satisfied, as the Guidance makes clear, that the tribunal should consider the adverse effects of the applicant’s condition up to and including the industrial tribunal hearing. By disregarding its findings of fact as to the actual recurrence of the adverse effects of the applicant’s condition which led him to go off work by reason of depression on 16 August 1997 and to continue off work until the date of the tribunal hearing the tribunal’s approach was fatally flawed.’

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 867 – 98 – 1706, [1999] ICR 969

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Cited by:

Cited – Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall CA 17-Jan-2008
The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that . .
Cited – East Sussex County Council v Hancock EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205305

Healy and others v Corporation of London: EAT 24 Jun 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 761 – 98 – 2406

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205309

McPartland v Pybus: EAT 11 May 1999

Whether the Applicant, was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent solicitors, for asserting a statutory right, contrary to Section 104 of the 1996 Act.T he Applicant now appealed against rejection of her claim. The Tribunal went on to find that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages amounting to andpound;15 and awarded her that amount. Her claim for ‘ordinary unfair dismissal’ (not being for an inadmissible reason) was adjourned pending the outcome of the Seymour-Smith litigation.

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 170 – 99 – 1105

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 104

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205222

Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council: EAT 13 May 1999

Preliminary hearing in proposed appeal.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 313 – 99 – 1305

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council EAT 27-Mar-2000
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Lindsay J said: ‘As for determining whether a wrongdoer is on his own business, just as no single test is nowadays seen to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205225

MMD (Shipping Services) Ltd v Philpott: EAT 1 May 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 943 – 98 – 0105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205224

Ghosh v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: EAT 2 Jul 1999

Preliminary appeal against order for payment by claimant of respondent’s costs of the hearing before the Emloyment Tribunal.
Held: The appeal could go ahead.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 220 – 99 – 0207

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Ghosh v London Borough of Tower Hamlets EAT 23-Mar-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Ghosh v Tower Hamlets and others EAT 13-Nov-2002
The claimant sought leave to appeal, and the EAT considered whether any point of law was properly raised. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205438

Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School: EAT 5 Jul 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 383 – 99 – 0507

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Lambrook Haileybury School v Gould EAT 1-Dec-1998
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School EAT 28-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v The Governors of Haileybury and Imperial Services College and others EAT 19-Jul-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205441

Costain Building and Civil Engineering v Smith and Another: EAT 5 May 1999

This case raises a question as to whether an agency worker engaged in the construction industry was an employee of the building contractor.

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 141 – 99 – 0505

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Costain Building and Civil Engineering Ltd v Smith, Chanton Group Plc EAT 29-Nov-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Construction

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205163

Broudie and Another v Khan: EAT 20 Apr 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 729 – 97 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 15-Jan-1997
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 21-Jun-1999
. .
See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 21-Oct-1999
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205056

Turner v Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK): EAT 23 Mar 1999

Appeal by Mr Turner against an Employment Tribunal’s order that his case on the merits be not heard until after the Employment Appeal Tribunal has heard and determined an appeal by his former employers, which they wish to make against a previous decision of the Employment Tribunal, that held that they had jurisdiction to deal with Mr Turner’s complaint.

Judges:

Morison P J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 310 – 99 – 2303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd) v Turner EAT 15-Jul-1999
Appeal against finding that defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court. . .
See Also – Harada Ltd T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd v Turner EAT 2-Nov-1999
EAT Jurisdiction – . .
See Also – Harada Ltd v Turner CA 6-Apr-2001
The claimant had sought damages alleging unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from his wages. The defendant argued that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. During preliminary discussions, the judge hearing the application was . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint Uk) v Turner EAT 25-Feb-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK) v Turner EAT 17-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205041

Foley v Post Office: EAT 1 Mar 1999

Judges:

Hlland J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 863 – 98 – 0103, [2000] IRLR 827

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Foley v Post Office EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – A v B EAT 14-Nov-2002
The claimant worked as a residential social worker. Allegations were made against him of inappropriate behaviour with a child. The girl’s allegations varied. A criminal investigation took place but insufficient evidence was found. The investigation . .
See Also – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204951

Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd: EAT 9 Feb 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 1160 – 98 – 0902

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd EAT 10-Nov-1999
An employee did not return to work after a presentation to him of a good service award, because he had drunk alcohol. A new policy required staff not to return to work after consuming alcohol, but had also said that alcohol would not be provided. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204830

Mock v Inland Revenue: EAT 1 Mar 1999

In the context of the time for appealing to the EAT under Rule 3(3) EAT Rules 1993, as amended, ‘sent’ referred to the date appearing on the ET ‘decision’.
Morison P said: ‘Industrial Tribunal chairmen are required to produce reasons. When reduced to writing, it is the responsibility of the clerk to transmit those reasons to the secretary who enters them in the register and sends a copy to the parties. A copy of the entry is attached to the decision. It follows that at the end of the decision there is inserted a date which specifies when the document was entered into the register. That provides a fixed date and explains why Rule 3(2) refers to the date on which extended written reasons were sent to the Appellant . . The context of the Rules tends inevitably to the view that ‘was sent’ means when it was sent i.e. the date from which time starts to run. This was the clear intention of Parliament. There is no room for the application of Section 7 if it would otherwise have applied. The Rule is defining a specific date at which an act was done.’

Judges:

Morison P

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 997 – 98 – 0103, [1999] IRLR 785

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 3(3), Interpretation Act 1978 7, Industrial Tribunal (Constitution etc.) Regulations 1993

Citing:

Disapproved – Immigration Advisory Services v Oommen EAT 19-Mar-1997
The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being allowed to proceed with the claim which the tribunal had judged to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out after the tribunal had been wrongly told that . .
Disapproved – Derrybaa Ltd v Castro Blanco EAT 1986
The rules required a notice to be sent not less than 14 days before a date fixed for a hearing.
Held: The word ‘send’ in Rule 5 refers to the date when the notice is received or deemed to have been received under the Interpretation Act. In so . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
See Also – Smock (T/A Coniston Coach Hire) v Wilson EAT 1-Dec-1998
. .
Cited – Scotford v Smithkline Beecham EAT 25-Oct-2001
. .
Cited – Kanapathiar v London Borough of Harrow EAT 25-Feb-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
Cited – Sian v Abbey National Plc EAT 25-Jun-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Time for appealing . .
Cited – Khan v Royal Mail Group Plc EAT 30-Sep-2004
Practice and Procedure – There is no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal against refusal to exercise discretion to extend time for an appeal under Rule 21 (1) and 37 (1) when it is common ground that UAE and Aziz principles apply and no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204993

Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd: EAT 15 Feb 1999

The appellant wished to pursue an appeal against the striking out of his claim, and objected that contrary to the Rules, a member of the board who had heard the pre-hearing review had also sat on the full hearing.
Held: The appeal should be allowed to go ahead.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 1170 – 98 – 1502

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 7(9) 11

Cited by:

Application for leave – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 6-Oct-1999
The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal.
Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2001
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
See also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 15-Jan-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – AA Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited CA 9-Aug-2002
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 30-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 19-Feb-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Natural Justice

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204843

HQ Service Children’s Education (MOD) v Davitt: EAT 28 Jan 1999

Judges:

Peter Clark HHJ

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 1358 – 98 – 2801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204737

Clancy v Cannock Chase Technical College: EAT 1 Feb 1999

The claimant sought to appeal against refusal to allow him an extension of time for appeal. He miscalculated the date.
Held: Reasons given for failure to apply in time often did not excuse the failure. That applied here. ‘The time limits, it must be asserted are limits and not targets to be aimed at. The interest of justice requires that these appeals should be brought to the Court within the 42 day period. After that period has expired, the successful party in the Industrial Tribunal is entitled to assume that the matter is at an end. The interests of justice require finality and that is a factor which I take into account. Standing back and looking at the whole of the case more generally, I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require me to extend time.’ Leave refused.

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 1026 – 98 – 0102, [1999] UKEAT 1026 – 98 – 1202

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

Cited – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Another EAT 10-Jul-1995
The appellant challenged a decision by the tribunal made in its absence that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear against it a claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The tribunal had erred. Though Sengupta had been decided under common law, it . .
Appealed to – Clancy v Cannock Chase Technical College CA 11-Jun-1999
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to appeal to the EAT out of time. He had miscalculated the closing date by ten days.
Held: ‘the existence of a ground of appeal does not in itself justify an extension of time. It has been held repeatedly . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Clancy v Cannock Chase Technical College CA 11-Jun-1999
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to appeal to the EAT out of time. He had miscalculated the closing date by ten days.
Held: ‘the existence of a ground of appeal does not in itself justify an extension of time. It has been held repeatedly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204807

Akinbele v South London Family Housing Association: EAT 19 Feb 1999

Appeal on basis that ET decision was perverse.
Held: Leave given

Judges:

Peter Clark HHJ

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 92 – 99 – 1902

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Leave – Akinbile v South London Family Housing Association EAT 23-Sep-1999
. .
Leave – Akinbile v South London Family Housing Association EAT 20-Nov-2000
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204791